Promoting Social Justice Advocacy through
Service-Learning in Higher Education
Erin Q. Schwartz
A core duty of institutions of higher education is to produce concerned
and active citizens who will advocate for necessary societal change.
Educators have responded to the demand for higher education to address
public issues and concerns (Kezar & Rhoads, 2001) by integrating servicelearning into their courses as a forum for students to apply the knowledge
they learn in practical and meaningful ways. Jacoby (1996) defines
service-learning as “a form of experiential education in which students
engage in activities that address human and community needs together
with structured opportunities intentionally designed to promote student
learning and development. Reflection and reciprocity are key concepts of
service-learning” (p. 5). Service-learning can be integrated into courses
to provide a learning experience outside of the traditional classroom that
forces students to think about societal systems and structures in a way that
simply reading a textbook cannot.
Service-learning is an innovative teaching pedagogy that engages
students in hands-on experiential learning and can serve as one method to
facilitate the goal of developing social justice advocates. Lee Anne Bell
(2000) provides a definition of social justice that emphasizes the dynamic
nature of the concept:
We believe that social justice is both a process and a goal. The goal of
social justice is full and equal participation of all groups in a society
that is mutually shaped to meet their needs. Social justice includes
a vision of society in which the distribution of resources is equitable
and all members are physically and psychologically safe and secure.
We envision a society in which individuals are both self-determining
(able to develop their full capacities) and interdependent (capable of
interacting democratically with others). Social justice involves social
actors who have a sense of their own agency as well as a sense of
social responsibility toward and with others, their society, and the
broader world in which we live. (p. 21)
Through well-structured service-learning, students can develop
Erin Q. Schwartz is the Coordinator of Student Programs at The New School.
She will complete her Master’s of Arts in Higher Education and Student Affairs
at New York University in May 2011.
a social justice lens and learn to analyze issues they encounter at their
placements and in their lives with a critical eye toward underlying injustices
at the core. In promoting this critical worldview, we are preparing the next
generation of social change agents who will be concerned with how those
injustices can be addressed in order to strive toward equitable participation
in society.
Theories of Student Learning
Service-learning is rooted in traditional theories of student learning.
Kezar and Rhoads (2001) trace its core concepts back to John Dewey.
They describe Dewey’s belief that early philosophy created a false
dualism between body and mind and between the spiritual and material
world and perpetuated a culture of dichotomous values throughout higher
education. Dewey, on the other hand, saw learning as an inextricable
process of knowing and doing (Peterson, 2009). He disagreed with
Aristotle and Plato’s division of practical and intellectual knowledge and
their belief that people should be educated according to their place in
society. Instead, Dewey called for democratic education to break down
these dualisms, serving to perpetuate power and privilege in society, and
embrace a “philosophy of continuity…based on a belief that people, as
holistic beings, learn best by engaging mind, body, spirit, experience,
and knowledge” (p. 162). Dewey proposed an educational model that
calls for precisely the kind of experiential, boundary-free learning that
service-learning provides. Current theorists agree that a seamless view
of learning, in which cognitive and affective outcomes are no longer
considered separate, is most beneficial for students (Kezar & Rhoads,
2001; Terenzini, Pascarella, & Blimling, 1996).
Building upon Dewey’s seminal work, David Kolb advanced a theory
of experiential education that informs many current educational practices
and beliefs. According to Kolb (1984), learning is “the process whereby
knowledge is created through the transformation of experience” (p.41,
as cited in Kolb, Boyatzis, & Mainemelis, 2000). He sees learning as a
cyclical process of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract
conceptualization, and active experimentation. Applied to servicelearning, students first engage in the concrete experience of providing
service, then observe and reflect upon that experience. Those observations
and reflections are then synthesized into abstract concepts—tied to
academic content in the case of service-learning—which can be called
upon later in active experimentation, when those concepts are applied
to new experiences. Kolb’s model provides the rationale for serviceVolume VII, 2011
13
Schwartz
learning’s intentional reflection process and describes how a student’s
service experience is translated into knowledge that can be applied to
future situations.
Cognitive development is a basic yet central goal of higher education
that service-learning can facilitate. Perry (1970) provides a model of
cognitive development whereby thinking progresses from dualistic to
uncertainty in the face of multiple viewpoints and a resolve in relativism.
Students at Perry’s highest level of cognitive development are able to
take multiple viewpoints into consideration and come to a conclusion and
act on them, despite their acknowledgement that there is not one, single
solution. This advanced cognitive reasoning is essential for critically
thinking about social issues and ways to address them (Eyler & Giles,
1999), a core component of civic engagement and social justice work.
Impact on Student Learning
In order to be sure that service-learning is yielding intended effects,
research has focused on learning outcomes of student participants. Because
some aspects of student learning experiences are unique to servicelearning, one might expect that student outcomes would be different from
those of a traditional classroom. Looking at various facets of learning,
including developmental and social skills, academic achievement, and
civic engagement, it is clear that service-learning can impact students’
commitment to social justice in ways that traditional learning environments
may not.
One of the most comprehensive studies to date of service-learning’s
effects on students was conducted by Eyler and Giles (1999) for their book,
Where’s the Learning in Service-Learning? Using surveys and interviews,
they collected data from over 1,500 students across the country, 1,100
of which were service-learning participants while comparing multiple
variables at the beginning and end of one semester. The following sections
use Eyler and Giles’s research as a framework to examine the effects
of service-learning on student outcomes as they relate to developing a
consciousness of social justice and a commitment to positive change.
Personal and Social Development
Early research on the effects of service-learning focused primarily on
students’ personal and interpersonal development. Service-learning puts
students in roles and situations that they would not be exposed to in a
traditional classroom, giving them the opportunity for increased personal
development, interpersonal competence, and exposure to diversity.
14
Journal of Student Affairs at New York University
Promoting Social Justice Advocacy through Service Learning
Although these qualities may not be explicitly stated goals of the academic
curriculum, they are essential to a holistic view of student learning as well
as to success in future professional settings (Eyler & Giles, 1999).
Eyler and Giles (1999) looked at various aspects of students’ personal
development, including self-knowledge, spiritual reward, reward from
helping others, career benefits, and perceived personal efficacy. Many
students indicated that increased self-knowledge was one of the most
important outcomes of their service-learning experience, citing areas such
as increased self-confidence and knowledge of personal interests as those
in which they learned more about themselves. Other research has found
similar results, with numbers as high as 97 percent of students indicating
increased self-knowledge and self-efficacy as a benefit of their servicelearning experience (Simons & Cleary, 2006). Students are challenged to
put their skills and classroom learning into practice and in doing so can
develop a sense of confidence in their abilities. This sense of self-efficacy
is related to future involvement in community service, with participants
of service-learning showing greater levels of perceived ability to make
a difference in the community than non-participants (Bernacki & Jaeger,
2008).
Other research has found that some students actually show a decrease
in their sense of power as a result of service-learning experiences. Miller
(1997) compared students’ perceived ability to make a difference in the
world before and after a service-learning course and found that students’
perceived capacity to change actually decreased. He notes that the effect
varied significantly depending on characteristics of students and placement
sites, underscoring the importance of not generalizing this finding to servicelearning as a whole. Miller argues, however, that perhaps the decrease in
scores is not actually a bad outcome, as students traditionally rate their
ability to make a difference much higher than older adults, suggesting a
shift from idealism to realism as a result of the service experience. Future
research would benefit from separating out characteristics of students and
placement sites to look at the differential effects those qualities have on
student outcomes.
Over half of the students Eyler and Giles surveyed indicated that the
reward of helping others was one of the most important benefits of servicelearning. Students translated good feelings they received from helping
others into a sense of personal competence. Some of those students
discussed a sense of spirituality or fulfillment of a religious commitment
in relation to the help they provided.
Volume VII, 2011
15
Schwartz
Students reap personal benefits from service-learning but they also
benefit in terms of social development. Studies have found increases in
students’ abilities to work with others as a result of the service-learning
experience (Osborne, Hammerich, & Hensley, 1998; Simons & Clearly,
2006). Social skills are developed as students interact with people and
experience situations they might not traditionally encounter in their
undergraduate education. They also show increases in compassion and
sensitivity (Bernacki & Jaeger, 2008), two qualities that are important
for positive interpersonal interactions. Another aspect of interpersonal
competency is leadership skills, which can include anything from role
modeling good work ethic for new volunteers to launching an innovative
program at a service site. Service-learning students display an increase
in their capacity to lead (Eyler & Giles, 1999), although some research
suggests that this outcome is no more a result of service-learning than
traditional community service (Vogelgesang & Astin, 2000). Whether
the effect comes from the service, the learning, or a combination of both,
students can be put into leadership positions at their service-learning sites,
from facilitating meetings, to delivering a presentation, or organizing
projects, that force them to learn to work with diverse populations and
enable them to develop valuable leadership skills.
Tolerance and acceptance of diversity are among the major outcomes
associated with service-learning (Simons & Clearly, 2006; Vogelgesang
& Astin, 2000). Eyler and Giles (1999) purport that all other personal
and interpersonal gains from service-learning stem from the increased
appreciation of other cultures and reduction in stereotypes that servicelearning fosters. Students are given the opportunity to interact with other
volunteers, staff, and clients at community-based organizations who
often represent more diverse populations than their peers in classes and
on campus. These informal personal interactions can start to break down
stereotypes and increase tolerance for diversity, setting the groundwork
for more positive intergroup attitudes and appreciation of other cultures
(Eyler & Giles, 1999). Not only do these students value diversity, but they
show an increase in their commitment to promote racial understanding
(Vogelgesang & Astin, 2000). Similar research on community service
involvement shows that effects such as valuing interracial relationships
remain long after the service experience ends (Astin, Sax, & Avalos, 1999).
However, additional research found conflicting evidence, with
service-learning showing no effect on students’ diversity attitudes (Moely,
McFarland, Miron, Mercer & Ilustre, 2002). Moely et al. (2002) hypothesize
16
Journal of Student Affairs at New York University
Promoting Social Justice Advocacy through Service Learning
that this insignificant effect could be a matter of poor instrument reliability,
but that it could also be a programmatic flaw. Perhaps a lack of intentional
integration in reflection on topics such as race and social class, which are
difficult for students to translate into knowledge on their own, inhibit the
positive effects of diverse interactions. Indeed, a study by Myers-Lipton
(1996) compared a group of students in a service-learning class with a
group of students who volunteered on their own, finding that reductions
in students’ ratings on the Modern Racism Scale were significantly larger
for service-learning participants than volunteers. This difference between
the attitudes of service-learners and volunteers can be accounted for by the
integration of reflection that occurs in service-learning.
Practitioners must be weary of service-learning structured in
such a way that perpetuates the power dynamic between what is often
predominantly white college students working in communities of of color
(Moely et al., 2006). Rather than challenging students to examine the
societal structures that perpetuate injustice in society, poorly structured
service-learning experiences can have the opposite effect of reinforcing
stereotypes (Gallini & Moely, 2003). However, when done properly
with thorough and intentional reflection, service-learning can lay the
groundwork for tolerance and understanding that students can build upon
and apply to interpersonal relationships throughout their lives.
Academic Engagement and Achievement
For the acceptance of service-learning as a pedagogy in academia
necessarily focused on academic outcomes, results showing the academic
benefits of service-learning are necessary. Early research focused primarily
on developmental and social gains of service-learning in which connections
to social justice are fairly clear but research on academic development, can
also show the positive effects of service-learning on creating conscious
citizens. Research has shown that service-learning students feel more
engaged, evidenced by more positive course evaluations than nonservicelearning students (Gallini & Moely, 2003; Miller, 1994). Students rate
their service-learning courses as more academically challenging (Gallini
& Moely, 2003) and more valuable than their nonservice-learning peers
(Miller, 1994). They also report learning more and being motivated in
service-learning courses than in their nonservice-learning classes (Simons
& Clearly, 2006). Finding their experience in the community engaging,
students are naturally inclined to work harder.
Although it is clear that students feel as though they learn more from
service-learning, actual data on academic achievement has shown mixed
Volume VII, 2011
17
Schwartz
results. Some studies have found differences in grades between students
who participate in service-learning and students who do not, while
other studies find no difference between the two groups (Miller, 1994).
While grades may provide a convenient standard upon which to measure
academic learning, the conflicting evidence in the literature suggests
that it may not be the most effective method to analyze service-learning
outcomes. In fact, Eyler and Giles (1999) suggest that there is no reason
that service-learning should increase the actual acquisition of knowledge
over effective classroom teaching. Where they do see service-learning
providing academic enhancement is moving beyond factual regurgitation
to deeper understanding of course content and application of knowledge.
This advanced understanding and application is precisely what allows
and encourages service-learning students to explore the social justice
implications of their learning.
In a study of four sections of a pharmacy communications course,
two of which integrated service-learning and two of which did not,
coders rated research papers written by students in the service-learning
sections as significantly higher on measures of complexity of thinking and
inclusion of practical examples (Osborne, Hammerich, & Hensley, 1998).
Students’ writing showed that they were thinking more deeply about the
concepts they learned in class and were able to back up their arguments
with specific real-life examples. Similarly, Feldman et al. (2006) found
that service-learners’ “strong sense of involvement with the issues they
investigated helped those students construct cogent, well-supported
arguments for clearly articulated positions of ‘their’ issues” (p. 24).
Having the opportunity to collaboratively engage in the issues with their
community partners, service-learning students were able to construct more
substantive, applied, and contextually-based arguments. Students are able
to transfer specific knowledge to unrelated situations using their improved
reasoning skills, more apt to apply material to life issues they may have
become passionate about through exposure at their placement.
Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) note that the reflection component
which links community service with course goals is essential in providing
both the challenge and support central to progression through Perry’s
scheme of cognitive reasoning. In reflection, students are encouraged to
draw connections and come up with solutions to social problems based
on various viewpoints, which helps them advance and practice complex
cognitive reasoning (Eyler & Giles, 1999). A study by Ash, Clayton, and
Atkinson (2005) shows that given encouragement – in their case, written
18
Journal of Student Affairs at New York University
Promoting Social Justice Advocacy through Service Learning
feedback on reflective journals challenging students to delve deeper into
relevant issues – students are able to thoroughly explore issues, positively
impacting their critical thinking capabilities. Students internalized
these prompts, displaying more advanced critical thinking in even the
raw versions of their writings as the semester progressed that suggests
long-term benefits from practice. Although journals and essays are
important and effective ways to facilitate reflection, in-class discussions
are particularly effective for achieving learning goals (Mabry 1999, as
cited in Hatcher, Bringle, & Muthiah, 2004). By exchanging views and
sharing perceptions and experiences, participants are exposed to multiple
perspectives, challenging their beliefs more than can be done through
independent writing alone. Exposing students to information and beliefs
contrary to their own is an essential step in fostering the development of a
social justice lens.
Students working in a community setting learn first-hand that problems
and solutions are not always as clearly understood as a neatly arranged
textbook may present them. Moreover, they begin to appreciate the
various layers and constituencies involved in trying to solve community
problems, noting things like difficulties in organizing a group, involving
those with multiple points of view, and identifying and joining already
existing efforts (Eyler & Giles, 1999). Whereas a common solution that
nonservice-learners gave Eyler and Giles (1999) to a proposed community
problem was to ‘just tell them’ how to solve their problems, servicelearners understood the complexity of issues and societal structures that
prohibit such an easy solution from working. Instead, service-learners
offered realistically complex solutions that addressed multiple ambiguities
inherent in social issues as well as the unavoidable imperfection of their
solutions. Feynman (1985, as cited in Eyler & Giles, 1999) points out
that “the capacity to entertain doubt and yet forge ahead…rests on the
qualities of critical thinking” (p. 159). With their ability to critically assess
problems, students know that their actions in the community may not
bring about the desired results in a clear cut way, but they are able to
pursue reasonable solutions anyway. Critical thinking is a key element that
allows students to address these ill-structured community problems and to
challenge traditional structures in society that give some privilege while
oppressing others.
Civic Engagement
In addition to the academic goals of higher education, institutions
are often committed to fostering a sense of civic engagement in students.
Volume VII, 2011
19
Schwartz
Civic engagement is closely related to social justice and encompasses a
variety of activities and values related to citizenship, ranging from voting
in democratic processes to performing community service. Although often
cited in the literature, effects of civic engagement can be hard to compare
as people have very different definitions of the term. Eyler and Giles
(1999) propose a model of citizenship based on five elements: values (“I
ought to do”), knowledge (“I know what I ought to do and why”), skills
(“I know how to do”), efficacy (“I can do, and it makes a difference”),
and commitment (“I must and will do”) (p. 157). Research on this topic
benefits from pre- and post-test measures of change in attitudes, as many
students who choose service-learning options rank higher on citizenship
values and views of social justice to begin with (Eyler, Giles, & Braxton,
1997).
Many students report an increased level of community connectedness
after a semester of service-learning and the effect is strongest for those
who perceive a community influence on their service projects (Eyler &
Giles, 1999). Experiences in which community partners are seen as equal
contributors to student learning, helping to shape the project according to
their needs, have a greater influence on students’ relation to the community
than those experiences in which community partners are seen as passive
recipients of services. A sense of connection and community inclusion is
an essential step in developing concern about social justice issues.
Because of their increased connection to the community, servicelearning participants are also more likely than their nonservice-learning
peers to value a commitment to service (Moely et al., 2002). Similar
results have been found in research on student participation in community
service. Astin and Sax (1998) found that volunteers showed increases in
civic responsibility across all twelve variables they measured, including
commitment to helping others, serving communities, influencing social
values, and influencing political structure. In a longitudinal study of the
effects of community service, these increases in civic engagement were
sustained years after the service experience itself (Astin, Sax, & Avalos,
1999). Although some changes in civic attitudes may occur simply
because of the community service, integration of that service into a course
through service-learning affects students above and beyond traditional
volunteering on such measures as commitment to activism and choosing
a service-related career. This indicates a lifelong commitment to service
and social justice (Vogelgesang & Astin, 2000). Research has shown that
when students are asked to explicitly make connections to civic values,
20
Journal of Student Affairs at New York University
Promoting Social Justice Advocacy through Service Learning
civic engagement is enhanced more than if students are left to make
connections on their own (Ash, Clayton, & Atkinson, 2005), underlining
the importance of intentionally drawing this link through reflection.
It is important to note, however, that some research has found that
mandated service can actually foster negative feelings toward community
service, such as perceiving the extra work more as a burden than an
opportunity (Marks & Jones, 2004). To avoid this, practitioners can
consider integrating service into a course as an alterative, for example, to
a traditional research paper. With a bit of encouragement, students who
might not have chosen to engage in volunteerism on their own can be
exposed to personal and community benefits through service-learning,
promoting participation in the future.
While the importance of volunteering should not be underscored,
in order to truly change injustices that create the need for such services,
underlying societal structures must be challenged.Service-learning
students show an expansion in their understanding of social issues, shifting
from individual explanations to broader systemic problems for the causes
of inequality in the community (Eyler, Giles, & Braxton, 1997; Moely et
al., 2002). Students are exposed to social justice issues in their servicelearning placements that bring awareness of the systemic inequalities
inherent in our society and can be encouraged to address them through
political and social action. Many service-learning students do show an
increase in valuing participation in political processes and importance
placed on impacting the political system (Eyler & Giles, 1999). These
values are essential to fostering participatory democracy and addressing
unequal distribution of power and privilege in the system.
Program Characteristics that Affect Student Outcomes
Although the majority of the research on service-learning points to
positive learning outcomes for participants, there are still some conflicting
results. Discrepancy in the literature can be accounted for through an
examination of the influence that different characteristics of servicelearning programs have on student learning and development.
The most highly influential aspect of service-learning programs is
the degree of integration between the community service component
and course content (Eyler & Giles, 1999; Hatcher, Bringle & Muthiah,
2004; Lambright & Lu, 2009). Students who indicate a lack of integration
between their service experience and course materials rate the course
as being of poorer quality and do not see the relevance of service to the
Volume VII, 2011
21
Schwartz
course (Hatcher, Bringle, & Muthiah, 2004). Highly involved faculty
members, like those who spend time checking in with each student about
the experiences at their sites, produce more positive student experiences,
as increased faculty contact is one of the major student benefits of servicelearning (Lambright & Yu, 2009). Faculty members who devote class time
to making explicit links between students’ service and course material
facilitate better quality service-learning experiences than those who do
not provide that link.
One way to make the connection between course content and service
is through reflection, as previously discussed. Reflection that is designed
intentionally around the desired learning goals is most effective in achieving
those goals, allowing the service piece and the classroom piece to “inform
and reinforce the other” (Ash, Clayton, & Atkinson, 2005, p. 49). Hatcher,
Bringle, and Muthiah (2004) note that “through reflection, the community
service can be studied and interpreted, much like a text is read and studied
for deeper understanding” (p. 39). In this sense, community service is
much like a textbook presenting course material, while reflection is the
necessary link to facilitate student learning.
Service-learning is much more effective if community partners
understand the goals and objectives of service-learning because they
are able to support students and provide meaningful, relevant work.
Community partners should be treated as co-educators as they have
invaluable knowledge to share about their organization and the population
they serve. Peterson (2009) states that “knowledge production typically has
occurred within an intellectual vacuum in higher education, establishing
clear divides between the knowers (the scientists, experts, and intellectuals)
and the known (the community members seen as an object of study, not a
source of knowledge)” (p. 548). Faculty and institutions should be careful
not to, knowingly or unknowingly, convey that academic knowledge is of
greater importance than community knowledge.
The best service-learning occurs when academia and community come
together in a reciprocal, mutually beneficial partnership (Feldman et al.,
2006). While it is important that service opportunities meet course goals,
it is equally important that the service is necessary and beneficial to the
organization. Poorly designed service-learning with no community input
can actually perpetuate power dynamics, reinforcing stereotypes of those
being served (Gallini & Moely, 2003), and putting community partners
in an undue position of inferiority to the academy (Peterson, 2009). With
good intentions but a lack of preparation, students often have the mentality
22
Journal of Student Affairs at New York University
Promoting Social Justice Advocacy through Service Learning
they are going in to help the needy, saying things like “I want to change
the world” or “I just want to help” (Peterson, 2009, p. 547). This mentality
assumes a void or deficit in the community that service providers are to go
in and fix. Alternatively, when students take an asset-based approach, they
go to their sites to learn from community members and serve in the context
of broader social justice issues, using what they learn in the community
and in their classroom to affect real change. The goals of service-learning
are realized when both parties learn and benefit from the relationship.
Practitioners can consider these program characteristics when thinking
about service-learning courses and plan accordingly.
Considerations for Research and Practice
Service-learning soared in popularity over the last couple of decades.
Research has sought to provide data for what practitioners anecdotally
know: service-learning is an effective pedagogical tool that enhances
learning by allowing students to apply course material to real-life situations.
Through structured reflection and thoughtfully planned projects, students
learn about themselves as well as the world around them, gaining an
appreciation for diversity and a drive for equity and justice.
Unfortunately, service-learning is not done well and the true benefits
of service-learning are not realized. Faculty members often decide to
integrate service-learning into their courses, and either the faculty or a
service-learning staff person will seek out a community partner to whom
they can propose a project. While not itself a problem, if the project is
designed from the academic side with little input from the community
partner, it could end up being more of a burden than a service to the
community. There are assumptions, such as the academic calendar, that
govern student projects, with students dropping in for a few months at
a time and then leaving the organization for spring and winter breaks.
Continuity is an issue, with college students coming and going each
semester, but kids in a community afterschool program staying for longer
durations of time. This is hard for community members such as children
who could benefit from consistency and true relationship building. Faculty
and service-learning staff should be cognizant of the assumptions inherent
in academia and be up front and honest with community partners regarding
the limitations of course-based service-learning. Students should also
be made aware of these dynamics so they can learn about creating truly
beneficial partnerships among different constituencies.
Recently, the trend in best practices and service-learning literature has
Volume VII, 2011
23
Schwartz
focused on including community voice more intentionally in the planning
and implementation of service-learning projects. Stoecker and Tryon’s
(2009) new book, The Unheard Voices, does for the community partner
perspective of service-learning what Eyler & Giles’ (1999) book, Where’s
the Learning in Service-Learning?, did for the academic perspective a
decade earlier. Stoecker and Tryon interviewed representatives from 67
experienced community-based organizations to expose both positive and
negative community perspectives on service-learning. Overall, community
organization staff valued service-learning; however, there are many ways
in which practitioners can and should improve their practice based on
recommendations in this book. Other literature has noted a shift from
traditional to critical service-learning, with the latter explicitly focusing
on social change, redistribution of power, and authentic relationships
(Mitchell, 2008). As service-learning develops and matures, it seems
refinement efforts will focus on creating mutually beneficial partnerships
that equally empower campus and community constituencies while
intentionally focusing students on social issues their service addresses.
One drawback of the research on service-learning is that it is almost
entirely done by academics, who are often service-learning practitioners
themselves. The voice of the literature is therefore naturally of the
academy and not of the community. Although community partners may
not have the time or resources to carry out large-scale research endeavors,
service-learning as a field would benefit from research coming directly
from the community partner staff and constituents it is purporting to
serve (Stoecker & Tryon, 2009). Furthermore, practitioners have a vested
interest in research showing positive benefits of a pedagogy they use in
their own classrooms, not entirely ideal for an objective study. Considering
these factors is crucial for practitioners to determine if service-learning is
to become a long-term facet of higher education and not a passing trend.
When executed properly, service-learning benefits all parties involved.
Community partners benefit from enthusiastic help, fresh perspectives, and
transmitting their mission to potential social justice advocates. Students
benefit personally, socially, and academically from engaging directly with
material, enabling them to experience practical applications of what they
learn, and working in diverse environments with committed advocates
for change. Educators and institutions benefit because students are more
invested in their work and gain a sense of responsibility and capability for
affecting real change in society.
24
Journal of Student Affairs at New York University
Promoting Social Justice Advocacy through Service Learning
References
Ash, S. L., Clayton, P. H. & Atkinson, M. P. (2005). Integrating reflection and
assessment to capture and improve student learning. Michigan Journal of
Community Service Learning, 11, 49-60. Retrieved from http://www.umich.
edu/~mjcsl/
Astin, A. W. & Sax, L. J. (1998). How undergraduates are affected by service
participation. Journal of College Student Development, 39(3), 251-263.
Retrieved from http://www.jcsdonline.org/
Astin, A. W., Sax, L. J, & Avalos, J. (1999). Long-term effects of volunteerism
during the undergraduate years. The Review of Higher Education, 22(2), 187202.
Bell, L. A. (2000). Theoretical foundations. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, C.
Castaneda, H. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zuniga (Eds.), Readings and
diversity for social justice (pp. 21-26). New York: Routledge.
Bernacki, M. L. & Jaeger, E. (2008). Exploring the impact of service-learning on
moral development and moral orientation. Michigan Journal of Community
Service Learning, 14(2), 5-15. Retrieved from http://www.umich.edu/~mjcsl/
Eyler, J. & Giles, D. E. (1999). Where’s the learning in service-learning? San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Eyler, J., Giles, D. E. & Braxton, J. (1997). The impact of service-learning on
college students. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 4, 5-15.
Retrieved from http://www.umich.edu/~mjcsl/
Feldman, A. M., Moss, T., Chin, D., Marie, M., Rai, C., & Graham, R. (2006).
The impact of partnership-centered, community-based learning on first-year
students’ academic research papers. Michigan Journal of Community Service
Learning, 13(1) 16-29. Retrieved from http://www.umich.edu/~mjcsl/
Gallini, S. M. & Moely, B. E. (2003). Service-learning and engagement, academic
challenge, and retention. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning,
10(1), 5-14. Retrieved from http://www.umich.edu/~mjcsl/
Hatcher, J. A., Bringle, R.G. & Muthiah, R. (2004). Designing effective reflection:
What matters to service-learning? Michigan Journal of Community Service
Learning, 11(4), 38-46. Retrieved from http://www.umich.edu/~mjcsl/
Jacoby, B. (1996). Service-learning in higher education: Concepts and practices.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kezar, A. & Rhoads, R. A. (2001). The dynamic tensions of service learning
in higher education: A philosophical perspective. The Journal of Higher
Education, 72, 148-171.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning
and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Volume VII, 2011
25
Schwartz
Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2000). Experiential learning
theory: Previous research and new directions. In R. Sternberg & L. Zhang
(Eds.) Perspectives on Cognitive, Learning, and Thinking Styles (pp. 228247). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lambright, K. T. & Lu, Y. (2009). What impacts the learning in service learning?
An examination of project structure and student characteristics. Journal of
Public Affairs Education, 15, 425-444.
Marks, H. E. & Jones, S. R. (2004). Community service in the transition: Shifts
and continuities in participation from high school to college. The Journal of
Higher Education, 75(3), 307-339. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2004.0015
Miller, J. (1994). Linking traditional and service-learning courses: Outcome
evaluations utilizing two pedagogically distinct models. Michigan Journal of
Community Service-Learning, 1, 29-36. Retrieved from http://www.umich.
edu/~mjcsl/
Miller, J. (1997). The impact of service-learning experiences on students’ sense
of power. Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning, 5, 48-57.
Retrieved from http://www.umich.edu/~mjcsl/
Mitchell, T. D. (2008). Traditional vs. critical service-learning: Engaging the
literature to differentiate two models. Michigan Journal of Community ServiceLearning, 14(2) 50-65. Retrieved from http://www.umich.edu/~mjcsl/
Moely, B. E., McFarland, M., Miron, D., Mercer, S. & Ilustre, V. (2002). Changes
in college students’ attitudes and intentions for civic involvement as a function
of service-learning experiences. Michigan Journal of Community ServiceLearning, 9(1), 18-26. Retrieved from http://www.umich.edu/~mjcsl/
Myers-Lipton, S. J. (1996). Effect of a comprehensive service-learning program
on college students’ level of modern racism. Michigan Journal of Community
Service-Learning, 3(1), 44-54. Retrieved from http://www.umich.edu/~mjcsl/
Osborne, R. E., Hammerich, S., Hensley, C. (1999). Student effects of servicelearning: Tracking changes across a semester. Michigan Journal of Community
Service-Learning, 5(1), 5-13. Retrieved from http://www.umich.edu/~mjcsl/
Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings
and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college
years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Peterson, T. H. (2009). Engaged scholarship: Reflections and research on the
pedagogy of social change. Teaching in Higher Education, 14, 541-552. doi:
10.1080/13562510903186741
Simons, L. & Cleary, B. (2006). The influence of service learning on students’
personal and social development. College Teaching, 54, 307-319.
26
Journal of Student Affairs at New York University
Promoting Social Justice Advocacy through Service Learning
Stoecker, R. & Tryon, E. A. (2009). The unheard voices. Philadelphia, PA:
Temple University Press.
Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E. T., & Blimling, G. S. (1999). Students’ out-of-class
experiences and their influence on learning and cognitive development: A
literature review. Journal of College Student Development, 40(5), 610-623.
Vogelgesang, L. J. & Astin, A. W. (2000). Comparing the effects of community
service and service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community ServiceLearning, 7(1), 25-34. Retrieved from http://www.umich.edu/~mjcsl/
Volume VII, 2011
27